A couple of months ago I moved to Canada, only equipped with my macbook pro (leaving my Arch box at home). While rmbp is a beautiful device, the macos was not working out for me.

I am a backend web developer, and I heavily rely on my machine having long uptimes (app servers, test runners, fsnotify based runners, tmux session, vim sessions and other stuff are pain in the ass to setup after every boot). Why am I meantioning this? Because shitosx crashes on me 4 times a week on average. I barely ever get 2 days of uptime.
If you've ever used systemd, you will get to hate the awfulness of launchd.

BE prepared to run tons of hacks. You need to patch osx kernel for pprof to work properly. Need to run tons of userspace hacks for the dev env. Heck, even my .vimrc is riddled with if has("mac") hooks.

You have to run linux vm in order to run Docker too.

With 10.9.2 update I lost it. It broke my git/ssh programs, and I had to compile openssl from source and sideload it over broken apple's one to fix it. I realized how vounerable I am due to no machine redundancy. Furious from all the OSX pain and suffering, I've pulled the trigger and spent 2k on new shiny PC.

The mobo was an excellent choice. I love MSI. It comes with Intel HD audio, Intel Wifi and Bluetooth 4.0 all working out of the box. Installing nvidia drivers was as easy as 'pacman -S nvidia'. SSD support is as easy as adding a TRIM discard options and setting swapiness to 1. I giggled while throwing away 4 driver CD's with Windows 8 drivers.

OS of choice is Arch. I've been running it for a year now, and its been the most stable OS I've ever used. I always break Ubuntu within few days/weeks as I try to install new version of Gnome or even trying to get basic modern hardware support (eg. new kernel or nvidia drivers). Fedora and OpenSUSE have been meh to me. Arch is so easy, and it just works. AUR is amazing, installing/updating software is a pure joy. My favorite thing about Arch however is the Wiki. No need to browse askubuntu/ubuntuforums and get burned by outdated stuff that doesn't work. Thanks to the awesome documentation, things in Arch take just a few minutes to figure out/setup.

I don't need to patch/hack on many things. Most of the stuff just works. No shell hacks, no kernel patches, no vim hooks, fs hacks. The developers already took care of everything (lots of web devs target Ubuntu, and due to similarities stuff just works on Arch too). Its not perfect, but its in my experience way better than OSX. The only things I had to install so far are infinality font renderer and my custom patched fonts for Vim.

Speaking of OSX, I have mixed feelings on it. It does come with some niceties. The strongest selling point are the devices it runs on (IMO retina macbook pros are the best laptops - 16:10 retina screen being the best feature). It ships with fairly nice desktop environment too. And some nice tools like mdfind (built on top of ancient, awful, hack riddled HFS+, but to be fair, ext4 isn't a gem either).

For now, I am retireing my macbook as a $2000 reddit machine and a redundancy policy (if I manage to break my Arch (very unlikely)).

I hope that in next 2 years GNU/Linux gets to run well on retina macbooks or that someone builds an equivalently good machine (16:10 display, high quality trackpad and long battery life is all I need).

I tried to hang in with Windows 7 when I bought my present laptop a few years ago, and I just couldn't do it. I couldn't uninstall all of the various windows programs (explorer, windows media player, etc.). This drove me nuts. I don't know why, it just did. So I installed Ubuntu on it and have made distro upgrades since. Honestly, this being my only computer it does everything I need it to like going to school online, writing papers, doing research, internet surfing, and most importantly of all, gaming on Steam ;) Good to have you back on Linux!

I ran Arch for over a year. I am currently running Fedora. I can say Arch is probably the best OS in the market. There is no competition to Pacman, AUR and ArchWiki. Little things keep breaking on my system under Arch. I hated it when something related to kernel or graphic would break on my system. It would leave my system unbootable and hence I moved to a released based system.

No, I don't think so. I am running Thinkpad T420i. It is I think 3 years old hardware. Think about living with an expansive optimus computer and Linux for 3 years. It has suffered every major kernel bug as far as I remember. Fedora also is very up to data system. Kernel upgrades seems to be a bad idea even on Fedora to me. It keeps breaking compatibility with Bumblebee/Nvidia.

Hmm, doesn't sound like your machine likes arch that much. Arch isn't really changing much, it's the software that they're tracking that does that, and without it I'd feel like it would have lost its charm.

How could you NOT see Arch as hard and complex? That's like saying Slackware's package installation process is simple and friendly or Gentoo's install is lightning-quick. Under the guise of "simple" it provides no help or other assistance for the end-user (just like Slackware's default package management).

Simple are things like GUI installs with checkboxes for separate home partitions, RAID or LLVM, graphical package management, all-in-one simple system configuration tools. None of that is "the Arch way". You don't get to reject all that stuff and then still claim you're simple and easy.

In your other comment to my same post you just said that arch is simple.. so you are obviously trolling here. Arch is made to pe simple, it might be a pit complicated, but by no means hard and complex.

Arch has the best wiki out there, and there is help on the cd in one of the other ttys as well, so saying that it provides no help or assistance is a factual error and a blatant lie.

I see that you like your checkboxes a lot, so you should use a distro that has a lot of them and chill, there is no need for slagging off arch for not having them. You clearly don't understand arch and are being an ass about It.

It's not difficult to do anything like this in arch, as long as you read the wiki, then you can set it up the way that you like it, and not the way that the distro wants you to.

Arch is easy, it just isn't made for ignorant assholes that lies and talks in hyperbole. So It's not the distro for you. :)

I'm not trolling. Arch's motto is "Keep It Simple", but people often fail to understand that that simplicity applies to the underlying technology, not to the user experience. Then they make the connection that Arch simple = Arch easy.

I'll absolutely agree with you about the quality of Arch's wiki, but a lengthy manual wasn't the kind of help I was referring to.

Arch is not easy, because dropping a user into fdisk is not easy. There's a saying, "Fencing is easy once you know how to do it." Of course, this applies to most things. But that's not the same thing as being designed to be easy for the user. I could pull up a quote from the Arch site I've got bookmarked somewhere where they say they could use automatic hardware detection and configuration and such during the install but they choose not to to provide a learning experience for the user or some such. So no, Arch intentionally chooses to do something other than easy.

I never argued that there were no benefits to Arch or no users or circumstances it was suited for. However, it's quite clear it's not "easy" as Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, and Slackware are not easy. This doesn't make them bad, but to call them easy would be misleading. My attempt to switch from Windows to Linux almost failed because I initially sought the "best" Linux and ended up attempting to use bleeding-edge distros when I needed a stable, 8+ hour a day work machine and almost gave up on Linux in frustration. I decided to try one last distro (after trying to stick with a certain bleeding edge rolling distro and ending up with two dead installs in 3 months after updates killed the OS). I started at the top of DistroWatch this time and went down the list until I found one I hadn't tried yet and hadn't heard bad things about. Luckily I ended up at a stable choice and I avoided switching to Win7 instead of Linux.

This happens a lot. There are people in /r/Python right now telling someone who's having a hard time grasping programming (not just python) that a book/website called "Learn Python the Hard Way" is what he needs (almost all exercises no text). I've seen horse racing handicappers tell people completely new to racing who don't know one end of a horse from the other what books they should read - all advanced, math-laden books I find hard to follow and I've been handicapping for almost 20 years. Sometimes people just forget what it was like to be a beginner and what's really easy (vs. what's easy for them now that they've done it for a long time). That's why we've got people arguing Ubuntu is an enterprise distro in one thread and that Arch is easy in another.

I'm not trolling. Arch's motto is "Keep It Simple", but people often fail to understand that that simplicity applies to the underlying technology, not to the user experience. Then they make the connection that Arch simple = Arch easy.

Well, it's not my fault that people are being stupid...

I'll absolutely agree with you about the quality of Arch's wiki, but a lengthy manual wasn't the kind of help I was referring to.

Logical fallacy, false equation. A wiki and a manual are two totally different things, you also don't say what specifically you were looking for.

Arch is not easy, because dropping a user into fdisk is not easy.

Well, dropping them into fdisk isn't really that hard, and it's cfdisk by the way, or you could do as my brother did installing arch, go in with a live cd and partitioning the disk through there, you have possibilities, and there is no dropping into in the arch install since it's not a script. You write commands yourself that you want to do. Also there is a good article on cfdisk on the archwiki.

There's a saying, "Fencing is easy once you know how to do it." Of course, this applies to most things.

Arch is pretty clear stating that they are for experienced users that want a small and simple distro, so these are the people that I'm talking about here.

But that's not the same thing as being designed to be easy for the user

Easiness is not an objective thing, and you should stop treating it as if it is. I find it really easy to speak Norwegian, I guess you would find it a bit more challenging, so designing something that is easy for an experienced power user is something else than designing something my grandmom can use, and something is not shit for not catering to nubees...

I could pull up a quote from the Arch site I've got bookmarked somewhere where they say they could use automatic hardware detection and configuration and such during the install but they choose not to to provide a learning experience for the user or some such. So no, Arch intentionally chooses to do something other than easy.

I guess you mean this:

Arch Linux users fully manage the system on their own. The system itself will offer little assistance, except for a simple set of maintenance tools that are designed to perfectly relay the user's commands to the system. Arch developers do not expend energy re-inventing GUI system tools; Arch is founded upon sensible design and excellent documentation.

And what's so difficult about installing udev? I guess I'm better at writing than most then, I wrote sudo pacman -Ss udev right the first time around.

However, it's quite clear it's not "easy"

There you go again, talking as if easy is an objective thing, no, it's not, and arch is easy since the programs that are running on your machine are ones that you installed yourself, and I mean, I managed to install it being 13, not reading englis especially well at all, I don't get what you mean here, do you really think that there are some objective form of easy, it seems like you're talking about convenience, and not difficulty, which are two completely different things.

My attempt to switch from Windows to Linux almost failed because I initially sought the "best" Linux and ended up attempting to use bleeding-edge distros when I needed a stable, 8+ hour a day work machine and almost gave up on Linux in frustration.

Wasn't the word bleeding edge a hint well enough? Why did you go for arch when it says on a page the installguide tells you to read:

Arch Linux targets and accommodates competent GNU/Linux users by giving them complete control and responsibility over the system.

...

decided to try one last distro (after trying to stick with a certain bleeding edge rolling distro and ending up with two dead installs in 3 months after updates killed the OS).

As a 13 year old guy I managed to manage my arch box perfectly fine, and I'm no genioys, rolling releases aren't something for you, great use something else, and stop dragging stuff out of the thin air that you're not backing up.

. Luckily I ended up at a stable choice and I avoided switching to Win7 instead of Linux.

I'm happy that you found something that works for you, and I'm sad that you're so dismissive of what others work all their day in without problems, what's your problem with arch anyway, did archers steal your lunch in school?

This happens a lot. There are people in /r/Python right now telling someone who's having a hard time grasping programming (not just python) that a book/website called "Learn Python the Hard Way" is what he needs (almost all exercises no text)

You are talking about people new to linux again, arch is not meant for people that are new to linux, so why is this even a topic?

. I've seen horse racing handicappers tell people completely new to racing who don't know one end of a horse from the other what books they should read - all advanced, math-laden books I find hard to follow and I've been handicapping for almost 20 years.

Well again, a false equivialency.

Sometimes people just forget what it was like to be a beginner and what's really easy (vs. what's easy for them now that they've done it for a long time). That's why we've got people arguing Ubuntu is an enterprise distro in one thread and that Arch is easy in another.

Again, you misunderstand which people arch is for, it's not for new people, it never has been and it never will be, I still find it easy, because I know what to expect, and when it goes belly up I know how to fix it, which I never did in another distro, for me this is something I keep under the category easy, even though that is a subjective term, and it might not be for others, but it certainly isn't something that is hard to understand.

Simple: if during install you want LVM and an installer drops you out to a shell prompt and requires you to use fdisk for partitioning, it's not "so easy". Checking a check box is "easy". A GUI partition manager like GParted would be reasonably easy. The Arch install process is neither easy nor user-friendly. When they say "keep it simple" they mean for the developers, not the end users. It's a very complex job to make things simple for end users.

Fdisk is by no means adifficult program to use, you use it in the same way as you use gparted, just because you don't find it pretty doesn't make it any more difficult, also it is very difficult to script a gui program.

The arch install process may not be what you call easy, but if you just follow the steps in the wiki it's not really difficult either, and you learn something from it. Another nice thing is that you can script it, and there are scripts if you are feeling lazy.

I don't find the ubuntu, fedora and open suse installers userfriendly, since I can't tell them to install only the packages that I wan't, so as you see, this is a subjective thing rather than something objective as you seem to see it.

And you've lost me again. This is 2014. People do not use a DOS-like disk partitioner in 2014. Period. Linux would lose the desktop grip it had if FDISK were required. This is the kind of thing Windows users point at to stereotype Linux as some type of archaic mainframe OS where you have to compile your own software. Heck, this image is trotted out so often on the ZDNet comment section that in another online venue when Linux was suggested to a user he complained in fear that he couldn't use Linux because "you have to compile all your own software and I don't know how to do that!".

This is not what we want to be the face of Linux. It can't be, not in a world in which OS X exists. And it doesn't need to be, either.

just because you don't find it pretty doesn't make it any more difficult

Are you joking? Dropping an average user into a scream that asks about "drive geometry" is more difficult than asking them about partition sizes in a GUI installer or better yet having an intelligent recommendation. Why is it so hard to admit that Arch isn't designed for newbies? Puppy Linux isn't designed for servers either, but that doesn't make it bad.

also it is very difficult to script a gui program.

And we see that "Keep it simple" is about making it simple for arch developers. No, designing as easy an experience for end users as possible is difficult - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

The arch install process may not be what you call easy, but if you just follow the
steps in the wiki it's not really difficult either, and you learn something from it.

The question becomes who would want to follow all the steps in the Wiki just to install Linux? That puts a huge upfront cost in time and effort in their way, worse than Secure Boot. They'll take one look at that and say "Why I should I do this when I can just answer 3 questions and Windows will install for me?" A Python developer in a talk put up slides that showed using a REST interface in Python and Ruby. Python's wasn't BAD, but there were almost twice as many steps. He said that the Ruby user would ask why they should do all that and go back to Ruby within 20 seconds. That's why he spent a lot of time building a much better REST library, and that's why Linux developers have worked hard to make the install process easier than that for Windows as well as more powerful.

I don't find the ubuntu, fedora and open suse installers userfriendly, since I can't
tell them to install only the packages that I wan't,

I can't speak to the current Ubuntu or Fedora installers (I know that what you say was at least true of Fedora's Anaconda the last time I tried it), but it is incorrect for OpenSUSE. When I switched to Linux in 2010 the OpenSUSE installer did give you the option of not installing any of its default packages and installing any of the 100s of others on the DVD. In the lastest release you can enter other repositories during the install and this should enable you to install anything else as well during the install. The live CD (I'm not even sure they have these anymore) did not give you the full install options though, but unlike Ubuntu this was not the preferred way to install the distro.

so as you see, this is a subjective thing rather than something objective as you
seem to see it.

It really is objective. When I was trying to find a Linux distro to help me switch, some had one checkbox to get a separate home partition; some allow LLVM or encryption with one check, and indeed some allow the selection of any software you want. OpenSUSE was amazing, showing a complete list of every single action that was going to be done (highlighting potentially destructive ones like formatting in red) and allowing you to change any of them before actually beginning the install process. You can fiddle with the boot menu and how long you want to wait before selecting a default, change firewall settings, add/delete packages, pick a desktop, enable/disable SSH, etc. There are lots of quantitative means to measure this.

And you've lost me again. This is 2014. People do not use a DOS-like disk partitioner in 2014.

Funny, now it suddenly has nothing to do with being difficult anymore... moving the goalposts anyone?

This is the kind of thing Windows users point at to stereotype Linux as some type of archaic mainframe OS where you have to compile your own software.

Using the terminal == compiling all software by hand? This is news to me, I guess I have to stop using the terminal then, since I don't have cred enough from not having compiled stuff from scratch.

This is the kind of thing Windows users point at to stereotype Linux as some type of archaic mainframe OS where you have to compile your own software. Heck, this image is trotted out so often on the ZDNet comment section that in another online venue when Linux was suggested to a user he complained in fear that he couldn't use Linux because "you have to compile all your own software and I don't know how to do that!".

I'm not to be blamed for other people being stupid and not researching... If you want something else to come out, then don't give linux a bad name by arguing like you do, and show them how to use open suse or ubuntu, where they don't have to touch the command line, it doesn't mean that I have to stop using arch? Stop being a dick please.

This is not what we want to be the face of Linux. It can't be, not in a world in which OS X exists. And it doesn't need to be, either.

OSX is overpriced ugly plastic, why would we want to be like that? I haven't said that linux has to be terminals, but it's what arch is, so if you don't like it, just use something else, they clearly state that arch is for people that like simplicity, and find that easy, like I do, I know that I'm not completely like all other people, and therefore I usually reccommend people to try some other distro as their first, since arch is meant for users that know what they're doing.

Are you joking? Dropping an average user into a scream that asks about "drive geometry" is more difficult than asking them about partition sizes in a GUI installer or better yet having an intelligent recommendation.

Again, arch is not for average users but for experienced users that know what you do, and no one said that you can't use gparted if you want to.

Why is it so hard to admit that Arch isn't designed for newbies?

Arch isn't designed for newbies, and I've never stated that, what I said is that arch is easy, which is something completely different, easiness is a subjective term, and not something objective.

Puppy Linux isn't designed for servers either, but that doesn't make it bad.

Puppy really is awesome :)

And we see that "Keep it simple" is about making it simple for arch developers. No, designing as easy an experience for end users as possible is difficult - but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

What you say is that end users never script? Then they should use some other operating system, like ubuntu or open-suse where you don't have to, noone is forcing anyone to use arch, and in a lot of my posts here I've been reccommending people not to go into it before they have a bit of experience. Arch isn't for new people. but for experienced people that want a simple and easy to understand system.

The question becomes who would want to follow all the steps in the Wiki just to install Linux?

I do, and a lot of other people do, I see a lot of arch logos in people's flairs here, so I guess I'm not alone.

That puts a huge upfront cost in time and effort in their way, worse than Secure Boot. They'll take one look at that and say "Why I should I do this when I can just answer 3 questions and Windows will install for me?"

When was the last time you installed windows? This is not how that has been, and I don't see many people that actually know how to reinstall windows that are stilll using it. Also if a convenient installation is something you want you're better off using something else, and you probably won't enjoy using arch anyway, just stop saying that it's difficult, it's not.

A Python developer in a talk put up slides that showed using a REST interface in Python and Ruby. Python's wasn't BAD, but there were almost twice as many steps. He said that the Ruby user would ask why they should do all that and go back to Ruby within 20 seconds.

Again a false equiviancy. Python isn't responsible for the apis of a framework that runs on top of it. And what that guy said is supposed to prove what for me now?

hat's why he spent a lot of time building a much better REST library, and that's why Linux developers have worked hard to make the install process easier than that for Windows as well as more powerful.

Are you trying to say that installing arch is less powerful? Now give me a break. Also if you don't like the arch install you probably won't like it afterwards either, that's how the installation works as a nice gating mechanic, it's helping people see that arch maybe isn't for them, it's for experienced users that know what they want.

I can't speak to the current Ubuntu or Fedora installers (I know that what you say was at least true of Fedora's Anaconda the last time I tried it), but it is incorrect for OpenSUSE.

So I can install GNOME in Open suse without installing gedit, epiphany, telepathy, and so on, cool, I didn't know this, that's really nice though. Good on them.

It really is objective.

No it's not.

When I was trying to find a Linux distro to help me switch,

Again, arch is for powerusers not for users new to linux that aren't willing to learn.

some had one checkbox to get a separate home partition;

You really love your checkboxes dont you ;)

ome allow LLVM or encryption with one check,

Nice for them

and indeed some allow the selection of any software you want

And what you're trying to say is?

OpenSUSE was amazing, showing a complete list of every single action that was going to be done (highlighting potentially destructive ones like formatting in red) and allowing you to change any of them before actually beginning the install process. You can fiddle with the boot menu and how long you want to wait before selecting a default, change firewall settings, add/delete packages, pick a desktop, enable/disable SSH, etc. There are lots of quantitative means to measure this.

Good to hear that you found something that works for you. Now please just stop telling lies, and talk like you're so much better than other people for having found "the one" operating system, don't you get that arch for me is like open suse is for you? People are different, and different strokes are for different folks. If arch isn't for you, great, use something else, and be happy, dont go around saying that it has no merit and is a shit system because it's not fitting you.

Well, I don't know what's really that difficult about arch? Most of it is in the arch wiki, and easy is a subjective term, when you have set up or worked a bit on arch it's pretty easy due to the simplisity of the arch system, at least that's my experience.

I took as a given that we are talking about those people, since those are the people that arch is meant for.. people that are new to linux and don't want to learn shoul not go in and use arch, they will have a terrible experience, and there is plenty of good distros for them. So why would I talk about it being easy for them? That wouldn't make much sense.

Well sure but if you think about it without the qualifier what you said is misleading similar to how people who talk about it yet never have used it. Misleading in different ways but still misleading.

Arch is freaking awesome and as a member of a project that makes a Linux app Arch is my favorite with their speed...it is astounding. With that said, Arch is not user friendly to setup and stuff like that is important to explain to people.

Antergos is am assume project too but not sure how I feel about it with new users...it makes Arch easy to setup which is great time saver for those experienced but it also might make it easier for new Linux users to and that could be a headache.

Since I edit on OS X, I get this in small constant dosages. It's enough to just keep me away as much as possible.
I still think the Mac is a bigger competitor to Linux on the desktop then Windows for a lot of cases.

Why is this? Here outside of the almighty US It's very infrequent that I see anything else than Windows and Linux machines. Apart from that apple equipment are really shunned at the most work places. From my experience people want to use what they're used to at work already.

I think he means in terms of usability for us as opposed to market share. Since OS X and Linux are both related to Unix (ok, distant cousins then...), many developers might prefer OS X over Windows, just from a system design level.
For example, as a OS X noob, the first time I tried to use apple's "Intuitive" interface, I got completely lost with the gui, but once I found the terminal, there were enough similarities to where I was able to find my way around a bit.

OSX may be related to Linux (Not really, the only thing is that osx is based on a posix compliant os). I don't see how someone would prefer it when it's even more locked down than windows, at least windows I can put on whatever machine I want to. The hardware that OSX runs on is overpriced to all hell and makes you look like a murican douche.

Yeah I've used a mac only once, (that's how rare they are here) but I lost my way completely. and all the good things are the ones they "lent" from BSD

Thanks for the direction, class fucking act budy!!! You and your arch fanboys can hang out here and circle jerk. I will be on my merry way. The show has suffered since the main machine has switched to arch anyways. Hardly fucking worth watching anymore. Better get a hold of your hero q5sys because I'm gonna troll the shit out of this sub until I'm banned. You sir are what we call a douche!

Noone told you you shouldn't use anything else than what you're comfortable with, the only thing that I'm commenting on is issues that people are having with it, try using something before critisizing it, and you might find you like it.

How do you think that I want your opinions to be silenced? That's just stupid, and troll away, I'm not sure who of us that makes a douche though, you should reconsider, I was polite, you're the one being an ass.